Benton v. Probation and Parole State of Louisiana
Filing
16
ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's 11 motion is GRANTED, without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to assert claims against the proper defendant officials, either by amendment or a new complaint, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 8/8/2018. (jls)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ANGELINA BENTON
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 17-17820
PROBATION AND PAROLE
STATE OF LOUISIANA
SECTION "B"(3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiff
Angelina
Benton
filed
suit
against
Defendant
Probation and Parole of the State of Louisiana. Rec. Doc. 1.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Rec. Doc. 11. Plaintiff has
attempted to file an opposition, but it has been deficient both
times. See Rec. Docs. 12-15. For the reasons discussed below,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion (Rec. Doc. 11) is
GRANTED, without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to assert claims
against the proper defendant officials, either by amendment or a
new complaint.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Angelina Benton filed suit against the Department
of Probation and Parole of the State of Louisiana. Rec. Doc. 1.
Plaintiff alleges she was wrongfully arrested in St. Tammany
Parish, Louisiana, wrongfully incarcerated for 23 months, served
six and one-half months on probation and parole, and was attacked
while in prison. Id. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction, insufficient service, and failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rec. Doc. 11.
1
Plaintiff filed deficient memoranda in opposition to Defendant’s
motion and has not cured the deficiency. Rec. Docs. 12-15.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
“Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity deprives a federal
court of jurisdiction to hear a suit against a state.” Warnock v.
Pecos
Cty.,
88
F.3d
342,
343
(5th
Cir.
1996).
Plaintiff
is
prohibited from bringing this claim because the Eleventh Amendment
bars states and their agencies from being sued by private parties.
See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 781-82 (1978) (per curiam); see
also Clay v. Tex. Women’s Univ., 728 F.2d 714, 715-16 (5th Cir.
1984).1
The only defendant named in Plaintiff’s complaint is
Louisiana Probation and Parole, Rec. Doc. 1, an agency of the State
of Louisiana, so Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed. See Bell v.
Dept. of Parole & Prob., No. 07-911, 2008 WL 577549, at *2 (M.D.
La. Mar. 3, 2008); Pharr v. Davis, No. 10-cv-1817, 2012 WL 622965,
at *3-4 (W.D. La. Jan. 5, 2012); Perkins v. La. Parole Bd., No.
12-780, 2013 WL 5934706, at *3 (M.D. La. Nov. 5, 2013). Instead of
suing a state agency, a plaintiff may sue a state official in his
or her personal capacity or in his or her official capacity for
injunctive relief. See, e.g., Raj v. La. State Univ., 714 F.3d
322, 327-29 (5th Cir. 2013); Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159,
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for illegal incarceration. Rec.
Doc. 1. It appears that Plaintiff seeks relief under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 which, which would invoke federal question jurisdiction.
1
2
168-71 (1985); Flowers v. Phelps, 964 F.2d 400, 401-02 (5th Cir.
1992) (per curiam).
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 8th day of August, 2018.
___________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?